SB1708 amends the Chicago Police Article of the Illinois Pension Code to shift litigation costs in certain disability-benefit disputes. If a Chicago police officer’s application for an ordinary disability benefit is denied, or if a duty disability, ordinary disability, or occupational disability benefit is terminated, and the officer seeks administrative review and wins, the officer would be entitled to recover court costs, litigation expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees from the pension fund.
The bill applies to administrative review actions involving the Chicago police pension fund and is intended to make successful challenges to benefit denials or terminations less financially burdensome for officers. It also adds a provision to the State Mandates Act stating that no state reimbursement is required for implementation of the new mandate, and it would take effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 5-228 of the Illinois Pension Code, specifically affecting the Chicago Police Article, by creating a fee-shifting rule in favor of prevailing officers in disability-benefit administrative review cases. It would require the pension fund, rather than the individual officer, to pay litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees when the officer prevails. The bill also adds a new exemption in the State Mandates Act to clarify that the State does not owe reimbursement for this change.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a claimant-protection and access-to-justice provision for Chicago police officers contesting disability-benefit decisions. The absence of discussion and votes means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue is who should bear the cost of litigation when a disability-benefit denial or termination is overturned: the pension fund or the individual officer. Supporters would likely view the bill as ensuring fairness for officers who successfully challenge benefit decisions, while opponents could argue it increases costs for the pension fund and may encourage more litigation. Because no transcripts or votes are available, no specific legislators, unions, pension officials, or other stakeholders are identified as taking positions in the provided record.